Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The execution trace of HHH1(DDD) shows the divergence
Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2025 12:10:05 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 138
Message-ID: <1021rpd$36co9$1@dont-email.me>
References: <1021ii4$3327l$6@dont-email.me> <1021jls$32035$1@dont-email.me>
 <1021jr1$3327l$7@dont-email.me> <1021jvn$32035$2@dont-email.me>
 <1021k32$3327l$9@dont-email.me> <1021k8c$32035$3@dont-email.me>
 <1021kgp$34oo9$1@dont-email.me> <1021klt$34pgj$1@dont-email.me>
 <1021kst$34oo9$2@dont-email.me> <1021l77$34pgj$2@dont-email.me>
 <1021m3r$34oo9$3@dont-email.me> <1021oh9$35mm5$1@dont-email.me>
 <1021ona$35nsp$1@dont-email.me> <1021ot3$35mm5$2@dont-email.me>
 <1021pcu$35nsp$2@dont-email.me> <1021prr$35mm5$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2025 19:10:06 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8b5701e9588c79f836e89c5073f428a2";
	logging-data="3355401"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18mDa+wVqskhatdfJPHzaNg"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:nXyntln1dr9lSo92vUYTXrZSf4Q=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250607-4, 6/7/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <1021prr$35mm5$3@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

On 6/7/2025 11:37 AM, dbush wrote:
> On 6/7/2025 12:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/7/2025 11:20 AM, dbush wrote:
>>> On 6/7/2025 12:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/7/2025 11:14 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>> On 6/7/2025 11:33 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/7/2025 10:17 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/7/2025 11:12 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2025 10:08 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2025 11:06 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2025 10:01 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2025 10:58 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2025 9:56 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2025 10:54 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2025 9:51 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2025 10:32 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The execution trace of HHH1(DDD) shows the divergence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of DDD emulated by HHH from DDD emulated by HHH1.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH1(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shows that DDD emulated by HHH and DDD emulated by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH1 diverges as soon as HHH begins emulating itself
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulating DDD.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *From the execution trace of HHH1(DDD) shown below*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD emulated by HHH1              DDD emulated by HHH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002183] push ebp               [00002183] push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002184] mov ebp,esp            [00002184] mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002186] push 00002183 ; DDD    [00002186] push 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 00002183 ; DDD
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000218b] call 000015c3 ; HHH    [0000218b] call 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 000015c3 ; HHH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *HHH1 emulates DDD once then HHH emulates DDD once, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these match*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The next instruction of DDD that HHH emulates is at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the machine address of 00002183.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The next instruction of DDD that HHH1 emulates is at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the machine address of 00002190.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The next instruction of DDD that both HHH and HHH1 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulates is at the machine address of 000015c3, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *That is not an instruction of DDD*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *That is not an instruction of DDD*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *That is not an instruction of DDD*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *That is not an instruction of DDD*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you're not operating on algorithms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words you are not actually paying any attention.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm very much paying to attention to the fact that you stated 
>>>>>>>>>>> that the code of the function H is not part of the input and 
>>>>>>>>>>> that you're therefore not working on the halting problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You say that I said things that I never said.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You said that the instruction at address 000015c3 is not part 
>>>>>>>>> of the input, which means the input to HHH is not an algorithm, 
>>>>>>>>> and therefore has nothing to do with the halting problem.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You really should be honest about not working on the halting 
>>>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I never said that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you're saying that the input to HHH is a description/ 
>>>>>>> specification of algorithm DDD consisting of the fixed code of 
>>>>>>> the function DDD, the fixed code of the function HHH, and the 
>>>>>>> fixed code of everything that HHH calls down to the OS level, and 
>>>>>>> that HHH must therefore report on the behavior of the algorithm 
>>>>>>> described/ specified by its input?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The directly executed DDD() would never stop running
>>>>>> unless HHH(DDD) aborts the simulation of its input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The directly executed HHH(DDD) would never stop running
>>>>>> unless HHH(DDD) aborts the simulation of its input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thus conclusively proving that the input to HHH(DDD)
>>>>>
>>>>> Is not an algorithm, as you have admitted above, and therefore has 
>>>>> nothing to do with the halting problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> People might actually take you seriously if you stopped lying about 
>>>>> that.
>>>>
>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>>      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
>>>>      input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
>>>>      would never stop running unless aborted then
>>>>
>>>>      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Irrelevent, as you're not working on the halting problem by your own 
>>> admission:
>>>
>>
>> I have correctly refuted the conventional proofs of
>> the Halting Problem
> 
> No you haven't, as you're not actually working on the halting problem as 
> you've admitted:
> 
> 

This *is* the architecture of the algorithm.

<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
     input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
     would never stop running unless aborted then

     H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
     specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>


-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer